Shaddock (L) & Associates PTY LTD and Another v Parramatta City Council1
| Author | Graeme E J Johnson |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X8201300106 |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
CASE NOTE
SHADDOCK
(L)
& ASSOCIATES PTY LTD and ANOTHER v
PARRAMATTA CITY COUNCIV
Torts-Negligence-
Negligent
mis-statement-
Duty
of
care-
Persons
on whom a duty
of
care
exists-
Advice and information
-Liability
of
public bodies
for
negligent mis-statement -Hedley Byrne v Heller and
MLCvEvatt
In the burgeoning field of negligent mis-statement causing financial loss
there are now three cases which attempt to establish the prerequisites for
the existence of a duty of care: Hedley Byrne & Co
Ltd
v Heller & Partners
Ltd,2 Mutual Life & Citizens' Assurance Co
Ltd
v Evatt,3 and Shaddock
(L) & Associates Pty
Ltd
v Parramatta City Council.4
The Facts
In July 1973 the appellant companies purchased property in the Sydney
suburb of Parramatta for the purpose of redevelopment. In February 1974
the respondent council, confirming a resolution of August 1971, determined
that two streets adjoining the appellants' property were to be widened
reducing the area of the property by almost forty per cent.
It
was, therefore,
unsuitable for redevelopment. The appellants would not have gone through
with their purchase had they known of the council's resolution.
Early in 1973 a representative of Shaddock and Associates had stressed
to the company's solicitor, a
Mr
Carroll, the importance of acquiring the
whole property for redevelopment.
Mr
Carroll, therefore, took steps to
establish whether the local council had any intention to widen or re-align
any of the various roads nearby.
He
telephoned the council's town planning
department and asked an unidentified employee whether there were any
such proposals in existence. The employee said there were not.
Mr
Carroll
then applied for various certificates under the Local Government Act 1919
(NSW). The application form (one commonly used by solicitors) contained
the following question: "Is the property affected or proposed to be affected
by
....
Road widening or re-aligning proposals
...
"?The
council supplied
Mr Carroll with a certificate pursuant to section 342AS.
It
was
the practice
of the council, if there were any such proposals, to note the fact on this
certificate. Mr Carroll knew of this practice, however the certificate he
received made no mention of any proposals. Mr Carroll and the appellants
took this to mean that there were none and proceeded with the purchase.
Before the trial judge, Waddell J, Shaddock and Associates raised four
arguments in support of their damages claim. 5 Only one of these need
concern us, the rest having been rejected and abandoned at this stage.
1 '(1981) 36
ALR
385; (1981) 55
ALJR
713. High Court
of
Australia; Gibbs CJ,
Stephen, Mason, Murphy
and
Aickin JJ.
2 [1964] AC 465.
3 (1970) 122
CLR
628.
4 (1981) 36 ALR 385.
li
[1978]
38
LGRA
23, 32-33.
95
To continue reading
Request your trial